linux-kernel - [tip: locking/core] locking/rtmutex: Implement equal priority lock stealing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:13:58 -0000
From:   "tip-bot2 for Gregory Haskins" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: locking/core] locking/rtmutex: Implement equal priority lock stealing

The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     48eb3f4fcfd35495a8357459aa6fe437aa430b00
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/48eb3f4fcfd35495a8357459aa6fe437aa430b00
Author:        Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
AuthorDate:    Sun, 15 Aug 2021 23:29:23 +02:00
Committer:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:06:07 +02:00

locking/rtmutex: Implement equal priority lock stealing

The current logic only allows lock stealing to occur if the current task is
of higher priority than the pending owner.

Significant throughput improvements can be gained by allowing the lock
stealing to include tasks of equal priority when the contended lock is a
spin_lock or a rw_lock and the tasks are not in a RT scheduling task.

The assumption was that the system will make faster progress by allowing
the task already on the CPU to take the lock rather than waiting for the
system to wake up a different task.

This does add a degree of unfairness, but in reality no negative side
effects have been observed in the many years that this has been used in the
RT kernel.

[ tglx: Refactored and rewritten several times by Steve Rostedt, Sebastian
  	Siewior and myself ]

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211305.857240222@linutronix.de
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index af7e3af..3eaf636 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -338,6 +338,26 @@ static __always_inline int rt_mutex_waiter_equal(struct rt_mutex_waiter *left,
 	return 1;
 }
 
+static inline bool rt_mutex_steal(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+				  struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter)
+{
+	if (rt_mutex_waiter_less(waiter, top_waiter))
+		return true;
+
+#ifdef RT_MUTEX_BUILD_SPINLOCKS
+	/*
+	 * Note that RT tasks are excluded from same priority (lateral)
+	 * steals to prevent the introduction of an unbounded latency.
+	 */
+	if (rt_prio(waiter->prio) || dl_prio(waiter->prio))
+		return false;
+
+	return rt_mutex_waiter_equal(waiter, top_waiter);
+#else
+	return false;
+#endif
+}
+
 #define __node_2_waiter(node) \
 	rb_entry((node), struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry)
 
@@ -932,19 +952,21 @@ try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex_base *lock, struct task_struct *task,
 	 * trylock attempt.
 	 */
 	if (waiter) {
-		/*
-		 * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of
-		 * @lock, give up.
-		 */
-		if (waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
-			return 0;
+		struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
 		/*
-		 * We can acquire the lock. Remove the waiter from the
-		 * lock waiters tree.
+		 * If waiter is the highest priority waiter of @lock,
+		 * or allowed to steal it, take it over.
 		 */
-		rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
-
+		if (waiter == top_waiter || rt_mutex_steal(waiter, top_waiter)) {
+			/*
+			 * We can acquire the lock. Remove the waiter from the
+			 * lock waiters tree.
+			 */
+			rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
+		} else {
+			return 0;
+		}
 	} else {
 		/*
 		 * If the lock has waiters already we check whether @task is
@@ -955,13 +977,9 @@ try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex_base *lock, struct task_struct *task,
 		 * not need to be dequeued.
 		 */
 		if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
-			/*
-			 * If @task->prio is greater than or equal to
-			 * the top waiter priority (kernel view),
-			 * @task lost.
-			 */
-			if (!rt_mutex_waiter_less(task_to_waiter(task),
-						  rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)))
+			/* Check whether the trylock can steal it. */
+			if (!rt_mutex_steal(task_to_waiter(task),
+					    rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)))
 				return 0;
 
 			/*